You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don't You?«: Ridicule
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Repositorium für die Medienwissenschaft Greg Grewell; Ken S. McAllister; Judd Ethan Ruggill »You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don’t You?«: Ridicule as Game Mechanic in the PORTAL-Series 2015 https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/15011 Veröffentlichungsversion / published version Sammelbandbeitrag / collection article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Grewell, Greg; McAllister, Ken S.; Ruggill, Judd Ethan: »You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don’t You?«: Ridicule as Game Mechanic in the PORTAL-Series. In: Thomas Hensel, Britta Neitzel, Rolf F. Nohr (Hg.): »The cake is a lie!« Polyperspektivische Betrachtungen des Computerspiels am Beispiel von PORTAL. Münster: LIT 2015, S. 323– 348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/15011. Erstmalig hier erschienen / Initial publication here: http://nuetzliche-bilder.de/bilder/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Hensel_Neitzel_Nohr_Portal_Onlienausgabe.pdf Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Creative Commons - This document is made available under a creative commons - Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Weitergabe unter Attribution - Non Commercial - Share Alike 3.0/ License. For more gleichen Bedingungen 3.0/ Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere information see: Auskünfte zu dieser Lizenz finden Sie hier: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Greg Grewell, Ken S. McAllister, Judd Ethan Ruggill »You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don’t You?«: Ridicule as Game Mechanic in the ›Portal‹-Series Early in Portal 2, the game’s Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System (GLaDOS) remarks to Chell, the player’s avatar: »Most people emerge from sus- pension terribly undernourished. I want to congratulate you on beating the odds and somehow managing to pack on a few pounds«. ¯1 It is a biting (albe- it funny) comment, and one that reverberates through a number of registers. First, the comment is part of a salvo of ›fat jokes‹ that permeate the game. There is the moment when Core 3 (AKA »Fact Sphere«) insists »You could stand to lose a few pounds«, for instance, or Wheatley’s repeated chants/taunts of »Fatty«. GLaDOS, of course, is the most consistently demeaning, chiding Chell for her »fat eyes« and proclaiming that »One of these times you’ll be so fat that you’ll jump, and just drop like a stone. Into acid, probably. Like a potato into a deep fat fryer«. Second, the fat jokes are intended to be insulting, not just funny. They are un- deniably nasty and depend on a certain cultural knowledge concerning body consciousness in relation to obesity. To be fathomable, a ›fat‹ or ›thin‹ joke-in- sult requires a concomitant social norm about an ›ideal‹ or ›normal‹ body. The presumption in Portal 2 – one drawn from real-world stereotypes – is that ›fat‹ equals incapable, undesirable, and even doomed. Third, while Chell is ostensibly the focus of these joke-insults, the player is their real target. Just as with other first person games, Portal 2’s visual perspective and direct address are designed to work conductively and immersively, to su- ture the player tightly to the narrative and the protagonist who drives it. The player is meant to inhabit the avatar and the game. Thus, when GLaDOS warns Chell – »The Enrichment Center regrets to inform you that this next test is im- possible. Make no attempt to solve it« – she is actually inciting the player. The same is true when Aperture Science founder and CEO Cave Johnson ostensibly insults new test subjects about the »honorarium« they will receive for helping to »make science«: »For many of you, I realize 60 dollars is an unprecedented windfall, so don’t go spending it all on…I don’t know. Caroline, what do these people buy? Tattered hats? Beard dirt?« It takes no great inductive leap to see that the taunt is in fact directed toward real world players who complain about »You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don’t You?« 323 the high cost of computer games ($60 being the typical market price for new games at Portal 2’s release). There are other registers to the game’s ridicule as well, including avatar/play- er intelligence (e.g., »You really do have brain-damage, don’t you?«), aptitude (e.g., »Please disregard any undeserved compliments«), and the like. The spec- trum of the game’s joke-insults is extensive, providing a veritable master class on the art of derision. In this chapter, we consider the range and registers of this derision. We begin by discussing questions of pleasure and pain, and how the act of ridicule can be a nexus for both. We then explore examples of ridicule in the Portal series against the backdrop of humor studies. We conclude by asserting that acts of ridicule are fundamental to all computer games, and we theorize ridicule’s role in game balance, interactivity, and the interdependence of humor, cultur- al norms, and play. Ridicule and the Pain/Pleasure Nexus While part of what makes the Portal series distinctive is the way it mocks the player relentlessly, all computer games evoke pain as part of their pleasure. The term ›pain‹ is derived from the Greek ποινή (poine) meaning a penalty one must pay, and in a ludic context this might include frustration, annoyance, confusion, anger, sadness, and disappointment. True to the term’s etymology, such feelings are the price one pays for playing the game. ›Pleasure‹, on the other hand, encompasses experiences such as satisfaction, understanding, resolution, happiness, joy, contentment, and glee. In many in- stances, pleasure is a reward for enduring pain, as when players suffer numer- ous failures before finally succeeding, or when previously opaque patterns and alternatives become clear, thus revealing a game’s win state. In fact, game bal- ance may be understood as the design point at which pain is not too great for most players nor pleasure too easily attainable.¯2 Ironically, an excess of plea- sure can easily devolve into boredom, a type of pain. Scholars have long been interested in the locus of pleasure and pain, particu- larly as they function in ridicule. Dialectical methods ranging from a Platonic dialogue’s use of feigned ignorance (Socratic irony) to the ancient practice of dissoi logoi, or contending with words and arguments, speak to the pleasurable and painful practice of using language dialogically to undermine others’ ideas, beliefs, and actions. So too do contemporary practices such as playing the doz- ens. Traditionally but not exclusively a Black cultural practice, the dozens is an 324 Greg Grewell, Ken S. McAllister, Judd Ethan Ruggill agon in which participants exchange rounds of ridicule with the intent not just to best one another or win the competition but also to practice and attain »ver- bal dexterity« while learning to appreciate »the power of words« (Abrahams 1962, 209-10; 215). More than just a game of playful bullying through ridicule – ›yo’ mama‹ jokes are a common form – it is a practice that conditions partici- pants to ridicule and to accept being ridiculed, and has informed later kinds of verbal contests such as battle rap and sport shit talking, the goals of which are to ›get in your [opponent’s] head‹ to distract as well as discompose him or her. Ridicule is not always as overtly combative as the dozens, however. In the spirit of Bakhtinian carnival, for example, many party games are designed explicit- ly to ridicule or embarrass participants – from pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, bob- bing for apples, charades, limbo, and arm-, leg-, and thumb-wrestling to spin the bottle, beer pong, and strip poker. In fact, entire industries have emerged that depend on the pleasure/pain nexus of ridicule: karaoke, talent shows, and re- ality television programming are just a few popular examples. At any rate, from the perspective of the ludic pleasure-pain nexus, ridicule may be understood to be partly educational, not only in how it teaches one to ridi- cule productively and effectively, but also in how it teaches one to endure, how not to be humiliated, shamed, or embarrassed. Ridicule in this sense has long been a tool for acclimating people to ridicule, a phenomenon active in the Por- tal franchise to be sure; in the beginning, the games’ ridiculing is surprising and unnerving, but by the end it is simply part of the play, along the lines of jumping and searching for cake. Many commentators remark about the Portal franchise’s use of humor, often in ways that hint at the pleasure/pain nexus. Less commonly discussed, how- ever, is what Brent Hannify calls the games’ »clandestine educational value« – »clandestine« because the learning (pain) sneaks in under the cover of humor (pleasure). Portal, for instance, signals the importance of humor and educa- tion in its opening scene: »fun and learning are the primary goals of the enrich- ment center activities«, intones GLaDOS. And while the game series requires players to use analysis and creativity to solve the many and increasingly diffi- cult in-game problems, the learning is not limited to these problems. A number of educators employ the games in their classrooms to teach physics, geometry, thermal dynamics, and other topics (Hannify 2012; Hawley 2014). Portal’s developer, Valve, has acknowledged the link between learning and fun and reached out to educators and students. The company has not only invit- ed the public to its corporate headquarters for learning events, but released the Steam for Schools platform, an online game distribution and communica- tion site »specially designed for use by teachers and students in a school, af- »You Really Do Have Brain-Damage, Don’t You?« 325 terschool or summer program setting« (Hannify 2012¯3). Again, though, what makes the franchise stand out for the committed and casual gamer alike is what most commentators generally call its humor.